We carried out a review of the data available to us about YourLife (Littlehampton) on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about YourLife (Littlehampton), you can give feedback on this service.
YourLife (Littlehampton) provides personal care to older persons in a setting called 'assisted living' where people have their own privately-owned apartment in a purpose-built development. The assisted living scheme had communal areas such as a lounge, restaurant, hairdressers, laundry room and beauty therapy room which people could use.
At the time of this inspection 45 people lived in the development. At the time of the inspection only four people received personal care from the service. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. YourLife (Littlehampton) also provided and organised activities for people. People were able to purchase other services which were not personal care such as meals in the restaurant which was not provided by YourLife (Littlehampton).
More information is in Detailed Findings below.
People’s experience of using this service:
• The service was totally committed to assisting people to pursue their interests which created a sense of belonging and purpose. A range of activities were on offer to ensure a variety of opportunities which reflected people's wishes and interests. The registered manager was passionate about providing person centred care and this was reflected in every aspect of the service. People and relatives were empowered to help run and improve the service. People knew how to complain and told us where they raised concerns the management acted promptly to address these.
• People told us they received safe care. They were supported by consistent and suitably trained staff. People received support to take their medicines safely and as prescribed. Risks to people's well-being and environmental safety were recorded and updated when the circumstances changed. The lessons were learnt where appropriate to improve the service further.
• People's rights to make their own decisions were respected. They were supported to access health services if needed. People's dietary needs were assessed and where required people were supported with their meals.
• People received caring and compassionate support from the staff. The management team led by example and staff referred to people in a caring way. People were complimentary about staff and about positive, caring relationships they were able to form with the staff. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and people were supported to be as independent as possible.
• The service was managed by a registered manager who had a clear vision on the quality they wanted to provide. There was a clear staffing structure and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities. The provider had a number of quality assurance systems in place and there was a focus on further development. The service worked well with other partners and organisations.
Rating at last inspection:
Good (report published 11 May 2016). At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good, and in some areas improved to Outstanding.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
YourLife (Littlehampton) provides personal care to older persons in a setting called ‘assisted living’ where people have their own privately owned apartment in a purpose built development. The assisted living scheme also had communal areas such as a lounge and restaurant which people could use. At the time of the inspection 13 people received personal care from the service. YourLife (Littlehampton) also provided and facilitated activities for people. People were also able to purchase other services which were not personal care such as meals in the restaurant which was not provided by YourLife (Littlehampton)
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People said the staff provided safe care.
Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance of how those risks should be managed to mitigate any risk of harm.
Sufficient numbers of staff were provided so people’s care needs were safely met. Care was provided to people on an individualised appointment basis and people could also access support over a 24 hour period by using the call point system in their apartments. Whilst there were checks on the suitability of each staff to work with people we found these were sometimes completed after staff started work.
People received their medicines safely.
Staff were well trained and supervised and had access to a range of relevant training courses, including nationally recognised qualifications.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. The service had policies and procedures regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s consent to care was sought. None of the people who received personal care lacked capacity to agree to their care and treatment.
People were supported with the preparation of meals where this was needed. People also made use of the restaurant where they could purchase a three course lunch each day.
People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed.
Staff had positive working relationships with people. Staff acknowledged people’s rights to privacy and choice. Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and respect.
Care was provided to people based on their individual needs which we call person centred care. People’s preferences and individual needs were acknowledged in the assessment of their needs and in how care was provided. Care plans gave clear details of the support each person needed which also reflected the way people preferred to be helped.
People had opportunities to socialise in the lounge and restaurant and organised their own social events and outings.
The service had a complaints procedure, which people said they were aware of.
People and their relatives’ views were sought as part of the service’s quality assurance process. The service promoted people to take part in decision making.
There were a number of systems for checking the safety and effectiveness of the service such as regular audits.
We spoke with two care workers who were on duty. They demonstrated they had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. They were also knowledgeable about the individual needs of people who used the service.
We also gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by looking at a selection of records. They included care records, staff recruitment records and records of audits conducted by representatives of the provider. We found that records we looked at were up to date and well maintained. They also ensured people received care that was safe, appropriate and in accordance with individual wishes and needs.
We spoke with four members of staff. They were all enthusiastic about their work. One told us, 'It's great, I really enjoy the job'. Another said, 'They look forward to seeing us as much as we do them'.
Everyone that we spoke with praised the manager.